This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 0/2] [PUSHED/OBV] gas/arc: Add nps400 support to .cpu directive

* Claudiu Zissulescu <> [2016-04-17 23:36:08 +0200]:

> I will repeat what Nick told me about the obvious commits (you can
> trace it in binutils mailing list):
> "The only exception is if the patch can be considered to be "obvious",
> in which case you
> can check it in without prior approval, but you must still post the
> patch to the list,
> and tell people that you are committing an obvious fix.  The exact
> definition of obvious
> in this context is a bit nebulous, but I consider it to mean not
> "legally significant"[1],
> not adding a new feature, and one to which any seasoned programmer
> would say "oh yes,
> that is obvious".
> [1]";
> I understand your patches are simple and can be considered obvious,
> but as far as I can read what Nick says, we still need to go through
> the reviewing process. My understanding of obvious patches are things
> like spelling, typos and fixing simple warnings or so.

Thank you for taking the time to explain all of this too me, you have
taught me a valuable lesson.

> Anyhow, coming back to your two commits, adding the nps4xx to .cpu
> directive is ok with me.

I have taken the liberty of leaving this commit in the tree.  I'll
keep my fingers crossed that a global maintainer doesn't object :-)

>                          The one which ignores case sensitivity, I am
> in doubts, as it firstly changes the established semantic of the .cpu
> pseudo-op. Then, introduces an uncertainty  how a cpu name is spelled.
> Finally, it seems it is a common practice for other processors as well
> to use case sensitivity match in this case. Though, I am not 100%
> against this latest patch, I would like to debate the pros and cons
> for such a change, although it may look trivial, the decision may
> affect us years to come.

I have reverted this change, and pushed the revert as obvious ;-)

Once again, thank you for your time, and I apologise to you, and any
other binutils developers for the offence I have caused.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]